Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

copyrightlately.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#161

Post by freejazz »

stego-tech wrote: post #155
mastermage wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This my fundamental problem with some of the propositions on this topic here. I fundamentally disagree to only for one example in a thread here have a copyright of 5 years for a Book Author. Many book authors could never finish their series without their first books becoming public domain or so. On the other hand Everything created by corporations i.e. where a corporation not a single human holds a copyright can get…

Exactly. This is something I’ve chewed on constantly for nigh on 20 years, and this is the best compromise I’ve been able to come up with. Smaller teams or individual creators need more copyright protections than large corporations, but the law doesn’t reflect that - and it’s why copyright is so widely abused as a result. This ain’t working for the interests of the public anymore, and AI has exacerbated it (large cor…

Corporations don't create copyrighted work. Authors do and assign their rights over. I continue to think that people pontificating on this space would be well served to inform themselves about how the business is generally conducted, as I see so many comments made from assumptions about principles and not actual reference to actual copyright law.

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#162

Post by freejazz »

ottah wrote: post #132
theragra wrote: post #2

As always, copyright is a supressor of creativity, not an enabler. Copyright terms should be 10-20 years max, or up to death of an author. Even current regime is ridiculous.

Or maybe we have never needed an exclusive economic monopoly on a creative work to encourage the creation of art? Maybe we would all be in a better world were art and culture lived in the collective commons, free for anyone in the zeitgeist to adapt and proliferate? Can we really say commercial production of culture has been truly the best for society?

That's pretty hypothetical. Do you not like music, movies and other art? Which art do you like? Which art do you think you'd see more of if there was no copyright?

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#163

Post by tptacek »

observationist wrote: post #57
theragra wrote: post #2

As always, copyright is a supressor of creativity, not an enabler. Copyright terms should be 10-20 years max, or up to death of an author. Even current regime is ridiculous.

0-5 years commercial copyright - the author/creator has total say on any and all commercial use, fair use doctrine applies. Years 6-10, extended fair use: mandatory attribution and 15% royalty but otherwise unlimited for public use in any context, for any reason. Years 11+, goes to public domain. Simple system. Encourages creativity, 99% of all money made on media (books, music, movies,etc) gets made during the first…

The system of copyright enshrined at the time of the founders is drastically more restrictive than this, which undercuts your "sick joke designed to enrich lawyers" line.

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#164

Post by freejazz »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #140
jimbooonooo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it seems fair to you, it's not your IP that's being stolen before you were able to extract all it's worth from.

You've completely misunderstood the social contract inherent in copyright. There's no theft in adaptation. Copyright is an intentional trade-off by society to incentivise the creation of new works for society's benefit by giving authors a temporary monopoly. Perpetual copyright would obviously maximize the incentives for authors, but harm society by precluding the creation of new works based on the original. Instead,…

> There's no theft in adaptation

There is if it's taken without license when it would otherwise be restricted...

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#165

Post by simonh »

toast0 wrote: post #147
simonh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So of I write a novel and never publish it, how should its value be calculated? If what matters is actually revenue, well, revenue is already taxed when it’s incurred. Suppose there is no future revenue, do I get the tax back eventually?

If you never publish it, and it's never published after your death; objectively it produced no income and has a monetary value of $0. With no offense to you or your novel; I would appraise an unpublished novel by an unknown author at something like $100, which might be too high. Some turn out to be worth much more, but most will be produce $0 or less for the author's estate.

How is that tax going to be assessed and by who? What constitutes a novel or a book over a set of well written notes? This whole idea is ludicrous, are we going to raid people's homes and audit their computers and notebooks to see if they've written anything that might be valuable? Just tax their income. We already do it.

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#166

Post by closewith »

brookst wrote: post #158
closewith wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually a solved problem. It is self-assessed valuation with compulsory sale at declared value, known as the Harberger Tax.

My mother wrote some tiny-selling (at the time) books; I own the copyright now. There is zero revenue (which is fine). Should I be forced to pay something every year to prevent some AI company from bidding $1 and taking ownership?

I think so, yes, or you could place the copyright in the public domain.

Your current situation is a prime example of the failure of current copyrights. You aren't incentivised to produce any new art, it was unearned as you weren't the author, and yet still the state enforces the copyright for you.

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#167

Post by jacquesm »

Swannie wrote: post #151
jacquesm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:) Let's just say that one day I found myself in the Tate Gallery with a Mondrian that needed some work... tech consultancy takes you into the most interesting places.

Digital conservation type work?

No, pigment analysis with a high end spectroscope, the painting had been damaged.

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#168

Post by ferfumarma »

jimmydddd wrote: post #107
function_seven wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Copyright is intended to an encourage artistic works to be published, with the author of those works knowing that they can earn a living creating art. J. K. Rowling has earned quite the bundle from Harry Potter. She has been incentivized.

What about the other 99.99999% of authors?

Nobody is pirating them

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#169

Post by Breza »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #115
Aerroon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wrote a book 20 years ago and it didn't sell much it's not going to sell now either, no? But I do like the idea of length determined by inverse correlation of size of the creator. 20 years might be too short where an author writes something popular and a movie company just waits 20 years to do something with it rather than pay the author.

> If they wrote a book 20 years ago and it didn't sell much it's not going to sell now either, no? That's not a universal rule. Andrzej Sapkowski wrote a little short story called "The Witcher" in the 80's, that he expanded on into a novel series through the 90's. Then a game development studio made a series of wildly successfully videogames based on his work, which definitely made way more money than his books, to t…

You just nailed the difficult balance in copyright law. I agree that life+70 is wayyyyy too long. But you also want to incentivize creators to keep trying to make something of their existing IP. Sapkowski is one example. Another good one is the Dresden Files series, which is 26 books in and still going strong. Each book in the series repeats some of the basics that were covered in the original (often using the exact same phrasing). Then the author extends the story over the course of a few hundred pages. If the original book were already public domain, anybody could write a fairly convincing in-universe book and I have to imagine the author would have moved on to other series.

Personally, I think 50 years strikes the best balance. Everything from the '60s would be fair use, so Spiderman would be public domain but not a wizard named Harry.

Re: Mondrian Entered the Public Domain. The Estate Disagrees

#170

Post by Breza »

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #3
theragra wrote: post #2

As always, copyright is a supressor of creativity, not an enabler. Copyright terms should be 10-20 years max, or up to death of an author. Even current regime is ridiculous.

It's rather incongruous that you register intellectual property for very little - and have states enforcing your rights for free - while a piece of land pays property taxes.

The government enforces your claim and you pay taxes on anything you earn from it. I bet most IP generates a whole lot more money for the government than enforcing the copyright costs.
Post reply on HN